STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HARSHADLAL SOMABHAI MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has approached this Court under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr. P. C.) to challenge the order dated 15. 10. 1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Rajpipla in Criminal Case no. 1753 of 1992 whereby the accused in that case filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been discharged only on the ground that the analysis report submitted in evidence was not signed on the day it was prepared. The trial court followed the orders and judgments of this court in holding that, if the report was not prepared and signed by the analyst on the same day when the sample was analysed, it would cease to have any evidentiary value and, therefore, the accused could not be convicted on the basis of such report. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that those orders and judgments relied upon by the trial court were thereafter overruled by a Division Bench of this court in State of Gujarat v. Vishramdas virumal FAC 2002 (1) 67 : [2000 (4) GLR 2884].

(2.) THIS court has, in Criminal Revision Application No. 330 of 1998 and allied matters decided on 27. 11. 2006, taken the view that the doctrine of prospective overruling could not be applied, in the facts and circumstances of those cases, so as to uphold the action of prematurely discharging the accused. Since the said judgment squarely covers the issue involved in the present case, this court is inclined to adopt the same reasoning and finding in this case as well.

(3.) THEREFORE, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in vishramdas Virumal (supra) and the decision taken in Criminal Revision application No. 330 of 1998 and allied matters, this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.